London 2012: East London residents march over missiles
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE]East London residents opposed to plans to site surface-to-air missiles on roofs for added security during the Olympics, are to march through Bow.
Six sites have been picked for surface-to-air missiles, some in residential spots, including Bow and Leytonstone.
Campaigners say 1,000 people have signed a petition in protest.
The Ministry of Defence said the safety of the Games was paramount and a "broad range of community engagement" had taken place.
Air threat
The sites, chosen from an original list of 100, include the Lexington Building in Tower Hamlets and the Fred Wigg Tower in Waltham Forest, east London.
The four other London sites identified as suitable for Rapier missiles are Blackheath Common; Oxleas Wood, Eltham; William Girling Reservoir, Enfield and Barn Hill in Epping Forest.
The proposals have yet to be confirmed.
Campaigner Chris Nineham said: "We don't believe they will add anything to security. If they are going to be used they will explode over some of the most densely populated areas in London."
He added: "I simply don't believe that since 9/11 a security system hasn't been put in place to protect Canary Wharf and east London.
"If fighter jets are sent from another country I hope they will be taken out before they get to London."
When a major security exercise took place in April standing joint commander General Sir Nick Parker explained there must be a plan which could deal with "the unlikely but very serious threat" that might exist to the Olympic Park.
He explained: "It's an air threat, really categorised in two ways, the sort of 9/11 threat everyone knows about, and also for the lower, slower type of target which might pop up closer to the Olympic Park, which we would need to intervene."
Residents of Fred Wigg Tower, Leytonstone, have launched legal proceedings in the hope of preventing the installation of missiles on their building's roof during the Olympics.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18658190[/url]
OH NO! Extra security precautions! I mean cause we would rather have thousands of people potentially die rather than have them on our house.
I seriously doubt that surface to air missiles are at all necessary. I'm okay with this.
[QUOTE=dunkace;36564314][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18658190[/url]
OH NO! Extra security precautions! I mean cause we would rather have thousands of people potentially die rather than have them on our house.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between extra security precautions and excessive security precautions.
[QUOTE=a dumb bear;36564325]I seriously doubt that surface to air missiles are at all necessary. I'm okay with this.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but does that extra safety precaution [I]really[/I] hurt the local residents?
[QUOTE=dunkace;36564314][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18658190[/url]
OH NO! Extra security precautions! I mean cause we would rather have thousands of people potentially die rather than have them on our house.[/QUOTE]
It's over the top cock wagging.
I have to say the surface-to-air missiles are pretty much paranoia extreme
I somehow have a feeling shit will go down even with all this crap
9/11 word 9/11 another word september 11 word tragic event in 2001 9/11 death word 9/11
It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;36564467]9/11 word 9/11 another word september 11 word tragic event in 2001 9/11 death word 9/11[/QUOTE]
Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?
London 2012: East London residents march over absolutely nothing.
Explain the rating, how is this a threat to any of the residents unless they have wings ?
better arm the nuclear warheads just in case
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36564480]Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?[/QUOTE]
you instantly reminded me of this.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1j2Ra-sGt0[/url]
[QUOTE=The golden;36564570]and assemble a fleet offshore.[/QUOTE]
Also lets spy on our own people and invade their privacy.
I bet they're [b]ALL[/b] going to turn against us.
It's to fight the terrorism!
[QUOTE=icemaz;36564336]I agree, but does that extra safety precaution [I]really[/I] hurt the local residents?[/QUOTE]
Well if they shoot down a plane where is that plane going to crash?
"Oh dearie me, I'd better find a nice field to crash my jet into so I don't hit any of those nice peoples' houses!'
Better to figure out a system to deal with jets before they get hijacked or flown within city limits
Make the entirety of London off limits to everyone; no exceptions
It's the only way to be sure
[QUOTE=alexojm;36564562]you instantly reminded me of this.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1j2Ra-sGt0[/url][/QUOTE]
that's what I got it from :v:
Which terrorist group has access to fighter pilots? Surely the real reason for these missiles is to take out commercial/civilian airliners that have been hijacked
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564590]Well if they shoot down a plane where is that plane going to crash?
"Oh dearie me, I'd better find a nice field to crash my jet into so I don't hit any of those nice peoples' houses!'
Better to figure out a system to deal with jets before they get hijacked or flown within city limits[/QUOTE]
Stop the plane from getting hijacked in the first place, so British missiles dont blow up a plane full of passengers or cargo over populated London.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564590]Well if they shoot down a plane where is that plane going to crash?
"Oh dearie me, I'd better find a nice field to crash my jet into so I don't hit any of those nice peoples' houses!'
Better to figure out a system to deal with jets before they get hijacked or flown within city limits[/QUOTE]
What's better ? a plane crashing/bombing a crowd or it's flaming carcass landing away, even if it does hit the city ?
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36564651]What's better ? a plane crashing/bombing a crowd or it's flaming carcass landing away, even if it does hit the city ?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sonydude;36564641]Stop the plane from getting hijacked in the first place, so British missiles dont blow up a plane full of passengers or cargo over populated London.[/QUOTE]
I did mention this in the post that you both quoted
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564590]
Better to figure out a system to deal with jets before they get hijacked or flown within city limits[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564672]I did mention this in the post that you both quoted[/QUOTE]
So ? what if they don't manage to stop it ? this is a second barrier.
I still don't see how this is a problem, it won't get in the way of anything.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36564860]So ? what if they don't manage to stop it ? this is a second barrier.
I still don't see how this is a problem, it won't get in the way of anything.[/QUOTE]
Apparently it is a problem because people are upset about it.
Maybe try to see it from their point of view. I'd be pretty wary of having a missile launcher in the park next door
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564886]Apparently it is a problem because people are upset about it.
Maybe try to see it from their point of view. I'd be pretty wary of having a missile launcher in the park next door[/QUOTE]
How is it hard having Surface-To-Air missiles in the park next door ? it's safer to you than a policeman with a gun.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564672]I did mention this in the post that you both quoted[/QUOTE]
The flying within city limits thing doesn't really work because there's an airport less than five miles away from the stadium.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36564926]How is it hard having Surface-To-Air missiles in the park next door ? it's safer to you than a policeman with a gun.[/QUOTE]
Well if I were a terrorist and I wanted to fly a plane into London, I might just get my mates to go and cause some serious damage to the machines (who's locations are widely available to anybody who wants them) that are capable of taking those planes out
If anything it's inviting further terrorist attacks in residential areas.
Surely there are better places to put these things.
[editline]1st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36564928]The flying within city limits thing doesn't really work because there's an airport less than five miles away from the stadium.[/QUOTE]
I put a bit in there about preventing hijacking too, I think
[QUOTE=Maloof?;36564955]Well if I were a terrorist and I wanted to fly a plane into London, I might just get my mates to go and cause some serious damage to the machines (who's locations are widely available to anybody who wants them) that are capable of taking those planes out
If anything it's inviting further terrorist attacks in residential areas.
Surely there are better places to put these things.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they can afford hunting all the missile launchers just so they could crash a plane against something, that would be stupid, and kind of give away the whole thing.
And if they did blow up a missile launcher, hey! that just saved lives, everyone would be alerted and they wouldn't be able to do anything else.
While I don't really see the need for a petition, the missiles are pretty stupid.
I can't see a plausible scenario in which they would do anything. Especially given the model of missile they are using.
A fighter jet isn't going to give a fuck about shoulder launched manually guided missiles. It is too fast and likely has enough friends that they were able to overwhelm the RAF. Plus, nobody is ever going to launch attack aircraft against the olympic games. They would be annihilated by virtually every nation on the planet.
A passenger jet is the real threat. But passenger jets aren't the intended target of shoulder launched missiles. A shoulder launched missile has an excellent chance of causing serious damage to a passenger jet, but unless it hits a perfect spot, the passenger jet is still going to have enough momentum and lift to reach its target.
Plus it is rather hard to hijack a passenger jet when you can't reach the cockpit. So that isn't even a real threat.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36564336]I agree, but does that extra safety precaution [I]really[/I] hurt the local residents?[/QUOTE]
...yes. What if one of those things decides to malfunction? What if the roof isn't as strong as it's supposed to be and the weight of the SAM causes it to cave in? What if the guys fuck up while installing it and destroy the house?
It's just a sporting event. There's no need for fucking SAM launchers on the rooftops. They need to go. It's stupid how seriously London is taking these stupid games.
Also if I was a terrorist, I would have no interest in hitting the games.
Killing a small group of troops and stealing a shoulder launched missile system though? That is a real prize.
[QUOTE=TestECull;36565066]...yes. What if one of those things decides to malfunction? What if the roof isn't as strong as it's supposed to be and the weight of the SAM causes it to cave in? What if the guys fuck up while installing it and destroy the house?
[/QUOTE]
The missiles might be useless but the guys responsible for them are not a bunch of idiots, that's why there's no need to get all upset about this, it's hardly a problem for anyone.
[editline]30th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565108]
Killing a small group of troops and stealing a shoulder launched missile system though? That is a real prize.[/QUOTE]
That's just as pointless as blowing up a bunch of people, if they had the resources to pull out something like this, they could just buy one instead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.